Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU take note: People are praying
Boston Herald ^ | 10/29/01 | Don Feder

Posted on 10/29/2001 6:59:43 AM PST by truthandlife

People are praying in public places, in open defiance of the Supreme Court. The New York Times trembles.

Children are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (with those ominous words, ``one nation under God''). Signs proclaiming ``God Bless America'' proliferate in public schools. The ACLU is agitated.

Patriotism and faith (they go hand in hand) have rebounded, and the guardians of multiculturalism and secularism look on with growing apprehension.

On Oct. 21, the Times alerted its readers to a dire development. In the wake of the World Trade Center attack, a prayer was offered before a high school football game in Greenbrier, Ark., even though our liege lords judicial told us in a decision last year that invocations at these events are tantamount to the Taliban's theocracy.

Nor is this an isolated incident.

A proposal before the South Carolina Legislature would transform the state's moment of silence at the beginning of the school day into an audible prayer - another desecration of the Constitution for the Supreme Court's majority. Texas Gov. Rick Perry shamelessly defended his participation in prayers at an elementary school earlier this month.

But First Amendment fetishists are striking back.

In Madison, Wis. - like Berkeley and Cambridge, a community of arthritic peace-marchers - the school board initially banned recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the national anthem.

Some parents - not police and firefighters, you may be sure - were upset by the pledge's appeal to the Almighty and ``militaristic themes'' in the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' Roughly 20,000 e-mails from outraged citizens, and prospective recall campaigns, resulted in a reversal of this cretinous policy.

Litigation terrorists have threatened to sue the Rocklin, Calif., Unified School District for displaying what the ACLU calls a ``hurtful, divisive message'' (``God Bless America'') on a marquee.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, patiently explains that even under the court's twisted interpretation of the establishment clause, ``God Bless America'' and ``one nation under God'' (referred to by one federal court as ``ceremonial deism'') are constitutionally permissible.

Sept. 11 has brought many things into sharper focus.

Politicians are no longer fearful of breaching that mythical wall of separation (words which do not appear in the First Amendment). President Bush proclaimed Sept. 14 a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. Congress authorized the use of the Capitol Rotunda for a day-long prayer vigil.

The House unanimously passed a resolution urging public schools to display ``God Bless America'' signs in a show of national unity. Not long ago, the high court was keelhauling high schools for posting the Ten Commandments.

New York City's Board of Education has brought back the Pledge of Allegiance to the Big Apple's schools, despite objections of the state ACLU that students who remain silent might be ``scapegoated or targeted.''

A cleansing wind is blowing through the land, clearing away cobwebs in the minds of those accustomed to unquestioningly obeying the elite.

You say you're uncomfortable with references to God in the pledge? Tough. America was founded on religious principles. The pilgrims weren't secular humanists. The Declaration of Independence appeals to the Supreme Judge of the World, not the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, if you can't bring yourself to publicly declare your loyalty to America (whatever your politics), you should consider relocating beyond our borders.

If football fans choose to ignore the Supreme Court's politically motivated reading of the Constitution, what will its God-phobic majority do - hijack a plane and crash it onto the field at halftime?

With 5,500 of our fellow citizens dead and the threat of anthrax and smallpox looming, Americans have little patience for cranks and fussbudgets who snivel about public expressions of faith - including those in black robes. In the eternal scheme, they are no more than flyspecks. I've yet to see a sign asking the ACLU to bless anything.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

1 posted on 10/29/2001 6:59:44 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
A cleansing wind is blowing through the land, clearing away cobwebs in the minds of those accustomed to unquestioningly obeying the elite.

About freaking time.

2 posted on 10/29/2001 7:05:18 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Amen...one of the best posts today. Thanks. I plan to email this to everyone...it is important that we keep reinforcing the need to increase our prayer and patriotic efforts. Too many flags are not flying and people seem to be forgetting already. This is a great reminder....I will pass it on.
3 posted on 10/29/2001 7:05:37 AM PST by Faithfull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
My pitiful little mind just can't fathom why anyone would be offended by the generic use of the word "God". Could someone please explain it to me? I just don't understand it. I've thought about it over and over and I can think of only one type of entity/person who would be offended: one who is in opposition to God. So, what type of people/entities are in opposition to God?
4 posted on 10/29/2001 7:15:56 AM PST by SubSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
bump
5 posted on 10/29/2001 7:17:40 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
"Litigation terrorists..."

Now, THAT is a VERY good description....

6 posted on 10/29/2001 7:21:21 AM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubSailor
My pitiful little mind just can't fathom why anyone would be offended by the generic use of the word "God". Could someone please explain it to me? I just don't understand it. I've thought about it over and over and I can think of only one type of entity/person who would be offended: one who is in opposition to God. So, what type of people/entities are in opposition to God?

I can think of two situations/groups who might take offense to the generic use of the word "God". Keep in mind that I do not claim to espouse either position.
First, there are those for whom God is very important and very sacred; so sacred, in fact, that His name should only be invoked when directly addressing Him. A "generic" invoking of His name is seen as insincere and meaningless, cheapening the value that has been placed in Him (or Her, or It, depending on the view of God).
Second there are those who do not believe in any gods. They may well take offense when all around them call to a return to God, feeling an implication that those without a belief in any gods are somehow to be treated as lesser citizens. They hear a calling for unity, and then hear for a calling to God and feel as though the call to unity is meant to "anyone but you, since you don't think like we do".
7 posted on 10/29/2001 7:24:17 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: truthandlife
Yes, the litigation terrorists are not happy these days. Their unabashed, blatant attempts to secularize America have been reversed by September 11.

It is unfortunate that 6000 innocent Americans have to die, for this country to wake up and realize where we came from, and how we became who we are, but it is indeed happening.

Any activities which make the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit angry have my support.

I am thrilled that we, as Americans, are rediscovering our patriotism and love for God and country. The rest be damned.

9 posted on 10/29/2001 7:37:23 AM PST by GoredInMich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Because the name of "God" was on the lips of those who killed 4000+ people on September 11, 2001, and one Taliban is bad enough.

No, the name of "Allah" was on the lips of those who killed 4000+ people on September 11, 2001.
10 posted on 10/29/2001 7:41:03 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If every word uttered in public places had to have universal agreement and never offend ANYONE then I dare say we'd all live in silence.
11 posted on 10/29/2001 7:41:55 AM PST by Media2Powerful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
God Bless Don Feder, and America, and us ALL.

AMEN!!!

12 posted on 10/29/2001 7:42:32 AM PST by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Media2Powerful
If every word uttered in public places had to have universal agreement and never offend ANYONE then I dare say we'd all live in silence.

Well I don't think that is the issue. Most (if not all) of the legal challenges against the utterance of "God" are lodged against a group seen as a government authority of some sort (ie a public school district). I've not heard of any large organized effort to prevent people from using the word "God" in public. It's not invoking the name of a God that bothers them so much as an authoritarian source turning it into an official proclimation.
13 posted on 10/29/2001 7:44:43 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
That certainly was a nice rant, but it didn't answer my question. So, now that I know that you think (to paraphrase you) 'God is dumb', why are you offended if I and others choose to be dumb? How is the term "God bless America" hurting you?
14 posted on 10/29/2001 7:45:33 AM PST by SubSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
You get my vote for idiotic A-hole of the day!
15 posted on 10/29/2001 7:47:11 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Not the Constitution, but the Declaration Of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

16 posted on 10/29/2001 8:03:24 AM PST by SubSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SubSailor
Therefore, the Declaration Of Independence is unconstitutional, right?
17 posted on 10/29/2001 8:46:23 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
Therefore, the Declaration Of Independence is unconstitutional, right?

Considering that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document of the United States of America, no it is not unconstitutional.
18 posted on 10/29/2001 9:05:20 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SubSailor
I read a survey about 2 years ago that OVER 95% of Americans believe in God (or some version thereof, ie "Allah" or "Great Spirit" -- if you are a monotheist/deist of any sort, you believe in God). That means that only 3-5% of us are atheists. What would we call a country where 5% dictates to 95% what they can say and do in public? I think it is tyranny of the minority. Atheists have had too much influence for too long. It is time for them to accept their mini-minority status. Besides, that way they can really feel superior to the "ignorant/unwashed/superstitious" 95%!
19 posted on 10/29/2001 9:21:06 AM PST by Jerez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document of the United States"

I have often seen this statement, and it's simply wrong. The Declaration of Independence is an exptremely important and formally binding document which was debated and voted on during the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. (I refer those who doubt this to the recent biography of John Adams).

It was formally adopted by Congress, and was a the proximate cause of the war between the United States and Great Britain.

You may mean that the Declaration is not the framework of our laws, as the Constitution is. That is true and immaterial. The Declaration is not a letter, essay, newspaper article, or the expression of a single individual. It was drafted initially by Thomas Jeffeson, and each phrase was debated and voted on by Congress. In the end each member of congress signed it, giving it the force of law. It's what the subsequent war was about.

Love and peace.

20 posted on 10/29/2001 9:25:14 AM PST by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson